On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 20:34:07 GMT, Matias Saavedra Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Coleen Phillimore has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Change redefine deleted name > > src/hotspot/share/classfile/javaStackTraceClasses.cpp line 247: > >> 245: >> 246: private: >> 247: // Move this up. > > Leftover comment here That comment was a reminder that after the first round of reviews, I want that method to be in the private part of the BacktraceBuilder, instead of the middle of the public part. I didn't move it because it would make it harder to see the diffs. Now I've moved it. > src/hotspot/share/classfile/javaStackTraceClasses.cpp line 291: > >> 289: } >> 290: >> 291: _methods_and_bcis->long_at_put(_index, > > Indentation seems off here This looks right in the source code. It's indented by 4. > src/hotspot/share/classfile/javaStackTraceClasses.cpp line 769: > >> 767: } >> 768: >> 769: > > Extra line deleted here This blank line should be deleted. It's somewhat related since I touched somewhat nearby code. > src/hotspot/share/classfile/javaStackTraceClasses.cpp line 1222: > >> 1220: } >> 1221: >> 1222: > > Extra line deleted This one could go back since the blank line separates code for different classes. > test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti/RedefineClasses/RedefineRunningMethodsWithBacktrace.java > line 137: > >> 135: // The first version of this method is running so we have the >> line number, >> 136: // the second is cleaned up, so we don't, the third version is >> current so we do. >> 137: return lineNumber == 82 || lineNumber == -1 || lineNumber == 13; > > Can these be fields instead of constants? I'm concerned that some change > elsewhere could cascade and change the line numbers down the line. Okay added some static consts that are a bit more descriptive. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32202#discussion_r3804077906 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32202#discussion_r3804062613 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32202#discussion_r3804051624 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32202#discussion_r3804047295 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32202#discussion_r3804107438
